Posted on 10/31/2009 10:28:46 AM PDT by nickcarraway
Is that the scene where one of the Gulchers is rigging a piece of machinery on a rail car as the business is leaving CT or somewhere for CO? If so, I believe it's the scene where the Colorado government is described as "lazy" because they're very minimalist by AS standards, only providing police and fire protection and letting the poor citizens fend for themselves. I love the dialog in that scene.
To be specific, there are two little boys aboard with their mother, the wife of a bureaucrat, and although their parents might be considered looters they themselves are hardly capable of appreciating the issues involved, much less participating in them.
In the Bible, children below the age of accountability (for that individual) inherit their judgement, good or bad, from their parents. That would simply be yet another crime to charge against the parent. So, not that I'm entirely happy about the situation, but I'm not letting the kids or their parents off the hook for their fate either.
But in fact I see in the real world a definite tendency of those same producers – and yes, they’re very real if not, perhaps, either so few or so superior as Rand’s heroes and heroines – a tendency to take their responsibility toward those potential innocent victims very seriously indeed. As they ought. And I suggest that in the real world that may prevent Atlas from shrugging.
I think you're probably right about that. But translating between Rand's political landscape and todays, between the psychology of her characters and real people, between what's technologically possible in her America and in ours, I think the equivalent to shrugging, that which would produce the same result in our world that shrugging does in hers, is more like the immediately pre-Shrug Reardon. Civil disobedience. Refuse to play along. If a substantial portion of the producers did that, it wouldn't matter whether they were all in some remote canyon or not.
Pardon me, but do you happen to have any Gray Poupon...your shoe?
In fact, I think that's going to become my mantra: "Please, please, please give us a government too 'lazy' to ruin our lives, make our decisions, and steal the results of our work!"
I'm not sure I agree. The legacy of the Carter administration is the loss of the Panama Canal, something we paid for. The legacy of the Clinton administration is NAFTA and GATT, both passed with the willing support of Republicans.
Once the Gingrich crowd assumed power, they gave us the hideous Telecom bill that led to the Worldcom scandal and the CDA. "Oh, we can't afford not to pass this vitally important telecom bill, so we'll let the CDA slide ..."
We need more than a change of leaders. We need a serious change of culture in DC. I'm not sure how we can achieve that.
The neocons who have blessed us with civil forfeiture (from the Reagan era) and the War on Terror, are no better. We are no better than ACORN when we attempt regime change. The War on Terror could (and should) have been better fought with SEALs rather than large scale (and expensive) wars.
Look at the results, not the intentions. Why are we still bogged down in two wars when we have vastly more spending on military than the rest of the world combined?
Or have I been reading too many Jack Clancy novels and am overestimating our special forces?
And nobody willing to take responsibility for the order. "The buck never got to me!"
“The neocons who have blessed us with civil forfeiture (from the Reagan era) and the War on Terror, are no better. We are no better than ACORN when we attempt regime change. The War on Terror could (and should) have been better fought with SEALs rather than large scale (and expensive) wars.”
I’m not sure what you mean by “civil forfeiture”, and I disagree with your assessment on the WoT. I’m amazed at how so many people seem to forget the actual history with Iraq. We had been “bogged down” in Iraq since GW1, and the entire international community had concerns about the KNOWN WMD armaments (nerve gas, anthrax and so on) Iraq possessed. The UN inspectors had SEEN them during the 1990s.
As Rumsfeld famously said, “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”. Most likely the WMDs were moved to Syria during the lengthy runup to the current Iraq war. There’s no doubt that a) they exist(ed) b) there were enough to kill hundreds of thousands of people and c) Saddam would have loved to see America hit with them by terrorists.
Afghanistan, don’t forget, is the “good war”, and until recently most Americans were solidly behind winning it and defeating Al Qaida and the Taliban.
“Look at the results, not the intentions. Why are we still bogged down in two wars when we have vastly more spending on military than the rest of the world combined?”
A number of reasons. Don’t forget that our warfighting efforts are only a small part of the DoD budget. We also maintain forces all over the world, and there are many necessary if expensive systems that aren’t currently useful in the WoT.
However, I’d also say that right now we’re “bogged down” in one war, we’ve won in Iraq unless there’s a big change. People give way too much weight to the occasional terrorist act there, Iraq now has a democratic government that should succeed.
Afghanistan, on the other hand, is a classically difficult military situation. Wars aren’t easy to win, and for all our (expensive) high-tech gear ground forces have borne the brunt of both wars.
“Or have I been reading too many Jack Clancy novels and am overestimating our special forces? “
The problem with “special forces raids” is that you need to know where to raid. I don’t believe we’d ever have had the intelligence necessary to strike Al Qaida effectively without conventional invasions. Note that Rumsfeld was in favor of a lighter, special forces weighted approach to Iraq. That strategy was dropped in favor of a “surge” of conventional troops, which worked.
If I were you, I’d also reflect on the tens of thousands of terrorists or terrorist sympathizers that’ve died in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the complete lack of successful attacks here in the States since 9/11. It’s hard to measure the value of those two facts. We were also respected for our strength in the Arab world until Bush’s stock fell, and he decided to forgo a hardline strategy. Now with 0 in office we’re perceived as very weak, and a lot of our progress is undone.
That seems to be reflected in the current situation in Afghanistan.
The idea that property can be accused of a crime and be confiscated by law enforcement. Better google it.
The Reagan administration also successfully demonized financial privacy as "money laundering". Also in the name of the War on (some) Drugs.
Both of those acts are starkly in contrast with his brilliant 1964 speech.
Donald Rumsfeld, whom I despise, has said many questionable things. I have as little love for neocons as I do for marxists or terrorists.
However, I’d also say that right now we’re “bogged down” in one war, we’ve won in Iraq unless there’s a big change.
Either we have won, or we haven't. Please pick one.
If we have indeed won, we should be on an exit strategery and stick to it. Iraq isn't worth one drop of American blood.
Afghanistan, on the other hand, is a classically difficult military situation. Wars aren’t easy to win, and for all our (expensive) high-tech gear ground forces have borne the brunt of both wars.
Indeed and Afghanistan has traditionally marked the grave sites of expansionist empires throughout history.
The facts suggest that we are in Afghanistan to procure a pipeline from the Caspian Sea (as per Dick Cheney). The very small remaining number of Zawahiri's loonies have probably all gone into Pakistan by now.
If we're there to support a gas pipeline, be honest about it.
If our goal is defeating terrorists, a surgical strike seems like the best idea.
All of our billions and billions of dollars of defense spending did not prevent 9/11. The probability that there is not a new Ayman Zawahiri in Iraq is very low.
If you must fight a war on terror, at least go after the right targets. "We are here!!! We are Muslim!!! We are here!!!!" - Ayman Zawahiri after being arrested in conjunction with the assassination of Anwar Sadat.
“I’ve heard arguments that Rand’s world would permit (or perhaps, wouldn’t prevent) guys like Bernie Madoff to commit crimes.”
As it should. Why shouldn’t his investors be held accountable for their actions? They knew full well that the returns were way out of line and they reveled in it. When the bottom fell out of the pyramid, the investors got what they deserved. They are not “victims.” They were willing participants in that game. Their own desire for easy money was their downfall.
Of course they are being held accountable with the loss of their assets. That should be enough regulation and motivation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.